How would the debate change if the kid's name was Muhammad or Roberto something-or-other? Or wasn't even a citizen?

Consciously objecting because you have the freedom to do so is quite different from choosing not to assimilate or wishing not to pledge to the flag of the United States of America because your allegiance lies with another flag.

SAN FRANCISCO — Politicians on both sides of the aisle decried a federal appeals court's declaration that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because of the words "under God" inserted by Congress in 1954.

The Wednesday ruling, if allowed to stand, would mean schoolchildren could no longer recite the pledge, at least in the nine Western states covered by the court.

The case was brought by a California man who objected to his daughter being compelled to listen to her second-grade classmates recite the pledge.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase "one nation under God" amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the separation of church and state.

Leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is "one nation under God" is as objectionable as making them say "we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote.

In Canada, where President Bush was taking part in an economic summit, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said: "The president's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous."

"The Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase 'God save the United States and this honorable court,'" Fleischer said. "The Declaration of Independence refers to God or to the creator four different times. Congress begins each session of the Congress each day with a prayer, and of course our currency says, 'In God We Trust.' The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision and the Department Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress."

Here was a guy, Michael A. Newdow, that wan't afraid to use his child as a political pawn.

I'm just having a hard time believing a ten year old understands what gays are or what he's actually doing. Some grownup must be behind this for media attention a la the balloon boy. (NO OFFENSE to the cause itself, just saying, ten years old, come on, he doesn't even know what sex is yet how can he understand the gay plight? )

There's rumour ten year olds have been caught that were quite smart. And have experienced or seen things earlier in their lifes and been able to grasp them.
And some ten year olds even have already been engaging in sex.